Allahabad High Court
Smt Chhotiraja vs State Of U.P. on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43426 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt Chhotiraja
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Babu Dubey,Satyam Narayan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 85 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B, 315 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Banpur, District Lalitpur.
3. Applicant is mother in law (Saas) of deceased and as per contents of FIR marriage between his son and the sister of first informant had taken place 11 months prior to the date of incident whereafter she was continuously harassed for dowry and upon its unfulfilment, he is said to have been murdered on 15th May, 2022.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of fact that he is mother-in-law of deceased. It is submitted that only general allegations of dowry harassment have been levelled against all the family members without any specific role being assigned to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or even in the statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Attention has been drawn to the post mortem report indicating that there are no external injuries on the body of deceased except for a ligature mark around the neck and death has occasioned as a result of asphyxia due to anti mortem hanging. It is submitted that applicant is old aged lady and is living separately from the couple and is under incarceration since 17th May, 2022. He lastly submits that the devar namely, Jagendra Singh has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 57151 of 2022, copy of which has been produced before this Court and is taken on record.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that contents of F.I.R. are duly supported by first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that only general allegations of dowry demand have been made against all the family members of husband of deceased. Documentary evidence though subject to further evidence during trial, has been adverted to indicate separate living of the applicant from couple while husband of deceased is already under custody. The post mortem report does not indicate any external injuries on the body of deceased except for a ligature mark around the neck and death has occasioned due to anti mortem hanging. Applicant is in jail since 17th May, 2022 and at this stage there does not appear to be any credible evidence against him.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant Smt. Chhotiraja involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and
(iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 2.1.2023
S.Ali
